State v. Orlando Hobson

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
OCTOBER 1997 SESSION
November 10, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
APPELLEE, )
) No. 01-C-01-9612-CC-00527
)
) Maury County
v. )
) Jim T. Hamilton, Judge
)
) (Revocation of Probation)
ORLANDO HOBSON, )
)
APPELLANT. )
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
William C. Bright John Knox Walkup
Assistant Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter
128 North 2nd Street 500 Charlotte Avenue
Pulaski, TN 38478 Nashville, TN 37243-0497
OF COUNSEL: Janis L. Turner
Assistant Attorney General
Shara A. Flacy 450 James Robertson Parkway
District Public Defender Nashville, TN 37243-0493
128 North 2nd Street
Pulaski, TN 38478 T. Michael Bottoms
District Public Defender
P.O. Box 459
Lawrenceburg, TN 38464-0459
Stella L. Hargrove
Assistant District Attorney General
10 Public Square
Columbia, TN 38402-1619
OPINION FILED:_______________________________
AFFIRMED
Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Orlando Hobson (defendant), appeals as of right from a judgment of
the trial court revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the balance of his
sentence. In this court, the defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by
ordering him to serve the balance of his sentences without considering whether he should
receive yet another alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs
submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the
opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of five (5) counts of sexual assault following his pleas
of guilty to these offenses. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve six (6) months
in the Maury County Jail and ordered all five sentences to be served consecutively. It
appears the sentences were imposed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The court
suspended the defendant’s entire sentence and placed him on probation for five (5) years.
The sentencing judgments were imposed February 17, 1995.
The trial court issued a revocation arrest warrant on April 28, 1995. The defendant’s
probation was revoked on June 5, 1995, because he had tested positive for cocaine. The
court reinstated the defendant’s probation on July 6, 1995.
A second revocation arrest warrant was issued on February 14, 1996. The grounds
for the issuance of the warrant were the failure of the defendant to report to his probation
officer for five months and failure to pay fees. The warrant was retired on March 15, 1996
with the understanding the case would be reviewed in two months. The warrant was
amended on April 29, 1996 to allege the defendant was residing in a home with young
children.
The warrant was amended a second time on August 14, 1996. The amended
warrant alleged the defendant had tested positive for marijuana. The third amendment to
the warrant, dated August 21, 1996, alleged the defendant changed his address without
advising the probation officer and failed to pay the fees ordered by the court. On
September 13, 1996, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered that he
serve the balance of his sentences. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
2
the defendant’s probation. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991).
This court has conducted a de novo review of the record in conformity with Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant
the defendant some form of alternative sentencing after this second revocation of his
probation. The state established the defendant tested positive for marijuana use; he failed
to advise the probation officer he was changing addresses before moving to Jackson,
Tennessee; he lived in a residence with three minor children after agreeing he would not
do so; he failed to report to the probation officer for five months; he failed to pay the fees
ordered by the trial court; and he failed to report for a psychological examination to
determine if he needed counseling for his sexual propensities involving children.
The trial court was very patient with the defendant, and the court gave the defendant
every opportunity to conform his conduct. The defendant obviously refused to conform his
conduct, and he committed the above enumerated violations of his probation. Moreover,
the evidence adduced at the hearing overcame the presumption that he is a favorable
candidate for alternative sentencing.
_______________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________________
WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
______________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
3